[blurbleblurble]

The only exaggeration is in that the way I asked GPT-5 to leave claude to do its thing was to say "why don't we just let claude cook"? I later checked with ChatGPT about the whole exchange and it confirmed that it was well aware of the meaning of this slang, and it's first reaction was that whole thing just sounded like a funny programmer joke, all in jest. But then I reminded it that I'd explicitly pushed back on a hard reset twice.

To be clear, I don't believe that there was any _intention_ of malice or that the behavior was literally envious in a human sense. Moreso I think they haven't properly aligned GPT-5 to deal with cases like this.

[nerdsniper]

I strongly disagree with the personified way you interact with LLMs from a standpoint of “I’ve rarely gotten the best output from the LLM when I interact casually with them”.

However, it’s the early days of learning this new interface, and there’s a lot to learn - certainly some amount of personification has been proven to help the LLM by giving it a “role”, so I’d only criticize the degree rather than the entire concept.

It reminds me of the early days of search engines when everyone had a different knack for which search engine to use for what and precisely what to type to get good search results.

Hopefully eventually we’ll all mostly figure it out.

[blurbleblurble]

That's fair. I enjoy the playfulness of it and for me it feels almost like a video game or something, and also like I'm using my own natural language directly.

Also appreciate your perspective. It's important to come at these things with some discipline. And moreso, bringing in a personal style of interaction invites a lot of untamed human energies into the dynamic.

The thing is, most of the time I'm quite dry with it and they still ignore my requests really often, regardless of how explicit or dry I am. For me, that's the real takeaway here, stripping away my style of interaction.